- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26313 WP No. 29763 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 29763 OF 2024 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. M/S STAR GRANDEUR A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, OFFICE AT PROPERTY NO.1/1A, NELSON MANDELA ROAD, BANNIMANTAPA LAYOUT, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570010 PAN CARD: AAJFH3977J, PH NO.: 9448764019 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS PETITIONER NOS.2 AND 3 2. SRI. AMEERUL SHABAZ S/O SRI. N.R. MOHAMMED GHOUSE, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, PARTNER OF M/S STAR GRANDEUR, PAN CARD: AFRPA5981J PH NO: 9448764019 3. SMT. AFSHAN TARANNUM W/O SRI AMEERUL SHABAZ, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PARTNER OF M/S STAR GRANDEUR, PAN CARD: AMYPT5751D PH NO.: 9448764019 BOTH RESIDING AT OPP. HANIF MOHALLA, MANDYA ROAD, NAGAMANGALA CITY, Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26313 WP No. 29763 of 2024 NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571432 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RUDRABHUSHAN C.B., ADVOCATE) AND: THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER CANARA BANK, B.M. ROAD, NAGAMANGALA, MANDYA DISTRICT-571432 IFSC CODE: CNRB0000529 PH NO.: +918234286032 ALSO HAVING OFFICE AT ARM II BRANCH II, 2ND FLOOR, CIRCLE OFFICE, SPENCERS TOWERS, NO.86, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, MR. RANJAN KUMAR, CHIEF MANAGER. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.S.SHYAMSUNDAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. LOKESH K.V., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.10.2024 PASSED BY HON'BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, BENGALURU IN S.A.NO.63 OF 2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26313 WP No. 29763 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners have called in question the correctness of the order at Annexure – A, dated 30.10.2024 passed in S.A.No.63/2024, in terms of said order, the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'DRT' for short) has disposed off the application filed by the petitioners herein under Section 17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as the ' SARFAESI Act' for short), challenging the action and the measure taken by the respondent pursuant order passed on 21.03.2024 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru in Crl.Misc.No.64/2024. 2. The said S.A. came to be dismissed as per order dated 30.10.2024. Subsequently, the petitioner has approached this Court and Court has passed an interim order on 06.11.2024 directing the respondent to redeliver physical possession of the mortgage property to the petitioner, subject to the petitioners depositing 25% of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26313 WP No. 29763 of 2024 outstanding amount due. It is not in dispute that the said interim order was complied with and in terms of the interim order on 06.11.2024, the respondent – Bank has also redelivered the possession of the mortgage property to the petitioners. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioners have a substantive remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against the order at Annexure–A passed in S.A.No.63/2024. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterates the offer made in the representation at Annexures – L and N. As regards such offer, respondent – Bank has pointed out the communication at Annexure – O. 5. It is noticed that as against the order passed by the DRT, petitioners have substantive remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. It is the settled position of law reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court on several occasions that High Courts ought not to entertain writ petitions - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26313 WP No. 29763 of 2024 insofar as matters relating to proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, which is a self contained code, as a general rule. Taking note of the contentions raised and noticing that the petitioners have substantive remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, the petition is disposed off, relegating the petitioners to avail of substantive remedy under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 6. The petitioners have to take appropriate action as against the impugned order. The respondent – Bank not to take any precipitative action pursuant to the impugned order for a period of four weeks from the receipt of copy of the order. 7. It is made clear that upon lapse of four weeks, the protection granted will stand discharged forthwith. It is also clarified that the protection granted is only to enable the petitioners to avail of substantive remedy and is not to be construed as protection granted taking note of the merits of the case. It is clarified that the authority before which petitioners challenge the impugned order may - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26313 WP No. 29763 of 2024 decide the matter independently without being influenced by or referring to the observations made herein. The time spent before this Court may be raised before the appropriate forum in the event of objection being raised regarding limitation. 8. All contentions of the respondent – Bank including action pursuant to the impugned order, are kept open. 9. In the interregnum, it is open for the petitioners to explore the possibility of settlement for closure of loan. 10. Subject to the above observations, the petition is disposed off. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37